Hostname: page-component-cc8bf7c57-7lvjp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-11T11:03:13.413Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Tale of Two Cultures: Contrasting Quantitative and Qualitative Research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2017

James Mahoney  and
Gary Goertz
James Mahoney
Affiliation:
Departments of Political Science and Sociology, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 60208-1006. e-mail: james-mahoney@northwestern.edu (corresponding author)
Gary Goertz
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721. e-mail: ggoertz@u.arizona.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The quantitative and qualitative research traditions can be thought of as distinct cultures marked by different values, beliefs, and norms. In this essay, we adopt this metaphor toward the end of contrasting these research traditions across 10 areas: (1) approaches to explanation, (2) conceptions of causation, (3) multivariate explanations, (4) equifinality, (5) scope and causal generalization, (6) case selection, (7) weighting observations, (8) substantively important cases, (9) lack of fit, and (10) concepts and measurement. We suggest that an appreciation of the alternative assumptions and goals of the traditions can help scholars avoid misunderstandings and contribute to more productive “cross-cultural” communication in political science.

Type
Research Article
Information
Political Analysis , Volume 14 , Issue 3: Special Issue on Causal Complexity and Qualitative Methods , Summer 2006 , pp. 227 - 249
Copyright
Copyright © The Author 2006. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Political Methodology 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Achen, Christopher H. 2005a. Let's put garbage-can regressions and garbage-can probits where they belong. Conflict Management and Peace Science 22: 327–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Achen, Christopher H. 2005b. Two cheers for Charles Ragin. Studies in Comparative International Development 40: 27–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Achen, Christopher H., and Snidal, Duncan. 1989. Rational deterrence theory and comparative case studies. World Politics 41: 143–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adcock, Robert, and Collier, David. 2001. Measurement validity: A shared standard for qualitative and quantitative research. American Political Science Review 95: 529–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Angrist, Joshua D., and Imbens, Guido W. 1995. Two-stage least squares estimation of average causal effects in models with variable treatment intensity. Journal of the American Statistical Association 90: 431–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Angrist, Joshua D., Imbens, Guido W., and Rubin, Donald. 1996. Identification of causal effects using instrumental variables. Journal of the American Statistical Association 91: 444–55.Google Scholar
Aron, Raymond. 1986 (1938). Introduction à la philosophie de l'histoire: essai sur les limites de l'objectivité historique. 2nd ed. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Ayer, Alfred Jules. 1946. Language, truth and logic. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
Beck, Nathaniel. 2006. Is causal-process observation an oxymoron? Political Analysis 10.1093/pan/mpj015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bollen, Kenneth A. 1980. Issues in the comparative measurement of political democracy. American Sociological Review 45: 370–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bollen, Kenneth A. 1993. Liberal democracy: Validity and method factors in cross-national measures. American Journal of Political Science 37: 1207–30.Google Scholar
Bollen, Kenneth A., and Jackman, Robert W. 1985. Regression diagnostics: An expository treatment of outliers and influential cases. Sociological Methods and Research 13: 510–42.Google Scholar
Bollen, Kenneth A., and Paxton, Pamela. 1998. Detection and determinants of bias in subjective measures. American Sociological Review 63: 465–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowman, Kirk, Lehoucq, Fabrice, and Mahoney, James. 2005. Measuring political democracy: Case expertise, data adequacy, and Central America. Comparative Political Studies 38: 939–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brady, H. E. 2004a. Data-set observations versus causal-process observations: The 2000 U.S. presidential election. In Rethinking social inquiry: Diverse tools, shared standards, ed. Brady, H. E. and Collier, D. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Brady, H. E. 2004b. Doing good and doing better: How far does the quantitative template get us? In Rethinking social inquiry: Diverse tools, shared standards, ed. Brady, H. E. and Collier, D. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Brady, H. E., and Collier, David, eds. 2004. Rethinking social inquiry: Diverse tools, shared standards. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Brady, H. E., and Seawright, Jason. 2004. Framing social inquiry: From models of causation to statistically based causal inference. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
Brambor, T., Clark, W., and Golder, M. 2006. Understanding interaction models: Improving empirical analyses. Political Analysis 14: 63–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braumoeller, Bear F. 2003. Causal complexity and the study of politics. Political Analysis 11: 209–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braumoeller, Bear F. 2004. Hypothesis testing and multiplicative interaction terms. International Organization 58: 807–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braumoeller, Bear F. 2006. Explaining variance: Exploring the neglected second moment. Political Analysis 10.1093/pan/mpj009.Google Scholar
Braumoeller, Bear F., and Goertz, Gary. 2000. The methodology of necessary conditions. American Journal of Political Science 44: 844–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooks, Stephen G., and Wohlforth, William C. 2000. Power, globalization, and the end of the Cold War: Reevaluating a landmark case for ideas. International Security 25: 5–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooks, Stephen G., and Wohlforth, William C. 2002. From old thinking to new thinking in qualitative research. International Security 26: 93–111.Google Scholar
Clark, W. R., Gilligan, M. J., and Golder, M. 2006. A simple multivariate test for asymmetric hypotheses. Political Analysis 10.1093/pan/mpj018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, Kevin A. 2005. The phantom menace: Omitted variable bias in econometric research. Conflict Management and Peace Science 22: 341–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collier, David. 1993. The comparative method. In Political science: The state of the discipline II, ed. Finifter, A. Washington, DC: American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
Collier, David, and Levitsky, Steven. 1997. Democracy with adjectives: Conceptual innovation in comparative research. World Politics 49: 430–51.Google Scholar
Collier, David, and Mahon, James E. Jr. 1993. Conceptual stretching revisited: Adapting categories in comparative analysis. American Political Science Review 87: 845–55.Google Scholar
Collier, David, Mahoney, James, and Seawright, Jason. 2004. Claiming too much: Warnings about selection bias. In Rethinking social inquiry: Diverse tools, shared standards, ed. Brady, H. E. and Collier, D. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Coppedge, Michael. 1999. Thickening thin concepts and theories: Combining large-N and small in comparative politics. Comparative Politics 31: 465–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawid, P. 2000. Causal inference without counterfactuals (with discussion). Journal of the American Statistical Association 95: 407–50.Google Scholar
Dion, Douglas. 1998. Evidence and inference in the comparative case study. Comparative Politics 30: 127–45.Google Scholar
Drèze, Jean, and Sen, Amartya. 1989. Hunger and public action. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Elman, Colin. 2005. Explanatory typologies in qualitative studies of international politics. International Organization 59: 293–326.Google Scholar
Elster, J. 1999. Alchemies of the mind: rationality and the emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
English, Robert D. 2002. Power, ideas, and new evidence on the Cold Wars end: A reply to Brooks and Wohlforth. International Security 26: 70–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esping-Andersen, Gøsta. 1990. The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Fearon, James D. 1996. Causes and counterfactuals in social science: Exploring an analogy between cellular automata and historical processes. In Counterfactual thought experiments in world politics, ed. Tetlock, P. and Belkin, A. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Freedman, David A. 1991. Statistical models and shoe leather. In Sociological methodology, ed. Marsden, P. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Gallie, W. 1955. Explanations in history and the genetic sciences. Mind 64: 160–80.Google Scholar
Geddes, Barbara. 1991. How the cases you choose affect the answers you get: Selection bias in comparative politics. In Political Analysis, ed. Stimson, J. A. Vol. 2. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
George, Alexander L., and Bennett, Andrew. 2005. Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gerring, John. 2001. Social science methodology: A criterial framework. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goertz, Gary. 2006. Social science concepts: A user's guide. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Goertz, Gary, and Mahoney, James. 2005. Two-level theories and fuzzy-set analysis. Sociological Methods and Research 33: 497–538.Google Scholar
Goertz, Gary, and Starr, Harvey, eds. 2003. Necessary conditions: Theory, methodology, and applications. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Goldstone, J. A. 1997. Methodological issues in comparative macrosociology. Comparative Social Research 16: 121–32.Google Scholar
Goldstone, J. A. 2003. Comparative historical analysis and knowledge accumulation in the study of revolutions. In Comparative historical analysis in the social sciences, ed. Mahoney, J. and Rueschemeyer, D. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Goldstone, J. A., Gurr, T. R., Harff, B., Levy, M. A., Marshall, M. G., Bates, R. H., Epstein, D. L., Kahl, C. H., Surko, P. T., Ulfelder, J. C., and Unger, A. N. 2000. State failure task report: Phase III findings. McLean, VA: Science Applications International Corporation.Google Scholar
Goldthorpe, J. 1997. Current issues in comparative macrosociology: A debate on methodological issues. Comparative Social Research 16: 1–26.Google Scholar
Goodwin, J., and Skocpol, Theda. 1989. Explaining revolutions in the contemporary Third World. Politics and Society 17: 489–509.Google Scholar
Hall, Peter A. 2003. Aligning ontology and methodology in comparative research. In Comparative historical analysis in the social sciences, ed. Mahoney, J. and Rueschemeyer, D. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Harvey, Frank P. 2003. Practicing coercion: Revisiting successes and failures using Boolean logic and comparative methods. In Necessary conditions: Theory, methodology, and applications, ed. Goertz, G. and Starr, H. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Heckman, James J. 1976. The common structure of statistical models of truncation, sample selection and limited dependent variables and a simple estimator for such models. Annals of Economic and Social Measurement 5: 475–92.Google Scholar
Hicks, Alexander M., Misra, Joya, and Ng, T. N. 1995. The programmatic emergence of the social security state. American Sociological Review 60: 329–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holland, Paul W. 1986a. Statistics and causal inference. Journal of the American Statistical Association 81: 945–60.Google Scholar
Holland, Paul W. 1986b. Statistics and causal inference: Rejoinder. Journal of the American Statistical Association 81: 968–70.Google Scholar
Honoré, Tony, and Lionel Adolphus Hart, Herbert. 1985. Causation in the law. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
King, Gary, Keohane, Robert O., and Verba, Sidney. 1994. Designing social inquiry: Scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
King, Gary, and Zeng, Langche. 2001. Logistic regression in rare events data. Political Analysis 9: 137–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lieberman, Evan S. 2005. Nested analysis as a mixed-method strategy for comparative research. American Political Science Review 99: 435–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lieberson, Stanley. 1985. Making it count: The improvement of social research and theory. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Lieberson, Stanley. 1991. Small Ns and big conclusions: An examination of the reasoning in comparative studies based on a small number of cases. Social Forces 70: 307–20.Google Scholar
Lieberson, Stanley. 1994. More on the uneasy case for using Mill-type methods in small-N comparative studies. Social Forces 72: 1225–37.Google Scholar
Luebbert, Gregory M. 1991. Liberalism, fascism, or social democracy: Social classes and the political origins of regimes in interwar Europe. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackie, John Leslie. 1980. The cement of the universe: A study of causation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mahoney, James. 2000. Strategies of causal inference in small-N research. Sociological Methods and Research 28: 387–424.Google Scholar
Mahoney, James. 2004. Comparative-historical methodology. Annual Review of Sociology 30: 81–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahoney, James, and Goertz, Gary. 2004. The possibility principle: Choosing negative cases in comparative research. American Political Science Review 98: 653–69.Google Scholar
McKeown, Timothy J. 1999. Case studies and the statistical worldview: Review of King, Keohane, and Verba's Designing Social Inquiry. International Organization 53: 161–90.Google Scholar
Moore, Barrington 1966. The social origins of dictatorship and democracy: Lord and peasant in the making of the modern world. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Munck, Gerardo L., and Verkuilen, Jay. 2002. Conceptualizing and measuring democracy: Evaluating alternative indices. 35: 5–34.Google Scholar
Nagel, Ernest. 1961. The structure of science: Problems in the logic of scientific explanation. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.Google Scholar
Przeworski, Adam, and Teune, Henry. 1970. The logic of comparative social inquiry. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Ragin, Charles C. 1987. The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Ragin, Charles C. 2000. Fuննy-set social science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Ragin, Charles C. 2004. Turning the tables: How case-oriented research challenges variable-oriented research. In Rethinking social inquiry: Diverse tools, shared standards, ed. Brady, H. E. and Collier, D. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Ray, James Lee. 2005. Constructing multivariate analyses (of dangerous dyads). Conflict Management and Peace Science 22: 277–92.Google Scholar
Sartori, Giovanni. 1970. Concept misformation in comparative politics. American Political Science Review 64: 1033–53.Google Scholar
Schrodt, Philip A. 2006. Beyond the linear frequentist orthodoxy. Political Analysis 10.1093/pan/mpj013.Google Scholar
Seawright, Jason. 2002. Testing for necessary and/or sufficient causation: Which cases are relevant? (with discussion) Political Analysis 10: 178–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seawright, Jason. 2005. Qualitative comparative analysis vis-à-vis regression. Studies in Comparative International Development 40: 3–26.Google Scholar
Shively, W. Phillips. 2006. Case selection: Insights from Rethinking Social Inquiry. Political Analysis 10.1093/pan/mpj007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skocpol, Theda. 1979. States and social revolutions: A comparative analysis of France, Russia, and China. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sobel, Michael E. 2000. Causal inference in the social sciences. Journal of the American Statistical Association 95: 647–51.Google Scholar
Stokes, Susan C. 2001. Mandates and democracy: Neoliberalism by surprise in Latin America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Van Evera, Stephen. 1997. Guide to methods for students of political science. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Vaughan, Diane. 1986. The Challenger launch decision. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Waldner, David. 1999. State building and late development. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Weber, Max. 1949. Objective possibility and adequate causation in historical explanation. The methodology of the social sciences. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Western, Bruce. 2001. Bayesian thinking about macrosociology. American Journal of Sociology 107: 352–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar